What Would You Consider Casino Royale to be?

[FunBobPants]

vote

 

[Everyman]

I would say canonical, as Bond movies have little or no continuity to begin with. If anything, it is more a retcon than a reboot.

 

[Two-Face]

I agree with Everyman, Bond has 21 movies and not all of them follow each other but if you going to do Casino Royale, you need a reboot since it follows Bond’s early career and how he became agent 007. I would have liked CR to been apart of other 20 movies to me it seems CR is the first Bond film and other 20 movies don't exist but I do love all 007 movies.

 

[Furious Styles]

I don't think the fans really care about continuity either. The franchise has flourished with different actors portraying the character in different eras and so on. Even if one were to consider Casino Royale a retcon, by no means does that diminish the value of the other 20 films.

 

[JamesBond007]

Casino Royale is definitely a reboot. The thing about the past Bond movies is that they never directly contradicted each other. Events in one movie were never wiped out by events in another. But with Casino Royale, there are several direct contradictions. Bond got his Aston Martin from Q in Goldfinger. In Casino Royale, he wins it in a poker game. Bond and Felix Leiter first met in Dr. No, then he lost a leg in Licence to Kill. In Casino Royale, Bond and Felix, both legs intact, meet for the first time. In GoldenEye, Judi Dench replaced Robert Brown, who had himself replaced Bernard Lee, who was first seen in Dr. No, when Bond was already an experienced 00-agent. In Casino Royale, he's just been promoted to 00-status, and M is played by Judi Dench, which is wrong, she should have been replaced, having made the role her own or not she should have been replaced. Finally, Casino Royale is very definitely set in the modern day. There's a direct reference to 9/11. Dr. No is very definitely set in the 60's. So no, Casino Royale is very definitely not a prequel, it is a reboot. It is Bond Begins

 

[storm-x-fan]

I feel a new face and a new style restarted this franchise.

 

[Venomfan]

with Casino Royale, there are several direct contradictions. Bond got his Aston Martin from Q in Goldfinger. In Casino Royale, he wins it in a poker game. Bond and Felix Leiter first met in Dr. No, then he lost a leg in Licence to Kill. In Casino Royale, Bond and Felix, both legs intact, meet for the first time. In GoldenEye, Judi Dench replaced Robert Brown, who had himself replaced Bernard Lee, who was first seen in Dr. No, when Bond was already an experienced 00-agent.

wow half of what you said doesnt make sense. i think it was pretty obvious that this movie takes place at the beginning of Bonds career so of course Felix would still have 2 legs. of course he wouldnt 00-agent yet. Dr. No takes place after Casino Royale, it makes perfect sense. plus its not like he still has an aston martin at the end of Casino Royale, it got pretty totalled. and the other 20 movies have had terrible continuity anyway. he meets felix for the first time in Dr. No and in another one(cant remember which). and Blofeld had terrible continuity

 

[Spider-Bat]

I would think of it as a prequel fitting with the others but Judy as 'M' makes no sense, how could she be there at the start of his career when she was brought in years later as the first female M.

 

[Venomfan]

I would think of it as a prequel fitting with the others but Judy as 'M' makes no sense, how could she be there at the start of his career when she was brought in years later as the first female M.

it really isnt any worse then any of the other continuity errors in the series

 

[Riven]

I would say canonical, as Bond movies have little or no continuity to begin with. If anything, it is more a retcon than a reboot.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Cyrusbales]

i was expecting the option here to like "dissappointing", "Ok" etc......

as it is, reboot.

 

[Savage]

Reboot. Definately a reboot. But I consider it a different franchise entirely every time there's a new James Bond anyway.

 

[David Rice]

It's a reboot like Batman Begins.

 

[Mr Jide]

Casino Royale is definitely a reboot. The thing about the past Bond movies is that they never directly contradicted each other. Events in one movie were never wiped out by events in another. But with Casino Royale, there are several direct contradictions. Bond got his Aston Martin from Q in Goldfinger. In Casino Royale, he wins it in a poker game. Bond and Felix Leiter first met in Dr. No, then he lost a leg in Licence to Kill. In Casino Royale, Bond and Felix, both legs intact, meet for the first time. In GoldenEye, Judi Dench replaced Robert Brown, who had himself replaced Bernard Lee, who was first seen in Dr. No, when Bond was already an experienced 00-agent. In Casino Royale, he's just been promoted to 00-status, and M is played by Judi Dench, which is wrong, she should have been replaced, having made the role her own or not she should have been replaced. Finally, Casino Royale is very definitely set in the modern day. There's a direct reference to 9/11. Dr. No is very definitely set in the 60's. So no, Casino Royale is very definitely not a prequel, it is a reboot. It is Bond Begins

What in God's name are you talking about?

 

[David Rice]

What in God's name are you talking about?

What in god's name are you taking about? This guy was right on with everything he said. What don't you get?

 

[*ANTHONY*]

Well, none of the Bond movies contradict with each other. Therefore, its not actually a reboot. But I think of it as a totally different series. IMO, each set of films with different actor's is like a different series.

 

[David Rice]

Well, none of the Bond movies contradict with each other. Therefore, its not actually a reboot. But I think of it as a totally different series. IMO, each set of films with different actor's is like a different series.

It's a reboot. They studio wanted it that way. How do you explain the differences from the book to the film?

 

[Mr Jide]

What in god's name are you taking about? This guy was right on with everything he said. What don't you get?

Yes, everything he said happened but that doesn't make it a reboot. As has been said before, there is very liitle to no continuity with hese flicks. These stories are being told with no real sequencial order. Just because its now that they'er telling the oriin of Bond doesn't make it a reboot. Had CR been legitimately made previously, then you and jamesbond007 wouldn't need to call ikea to give you a leg to stand on.

 

[David Rice]

Yes, everything he said happened but that doesn't make it a reboot. As has been said before, there is very liitle to no continuity with hese flicks. These stories are being told with no real sequencial order. Just because its now that they'er telling the oriin of Bond doesn't make it a reboot. Had CR been legitimately made previously, then you and jamesbond007 wouldn't need to call ikea to give you a leg to stand on.

Ok, well since the studio said they were going for the same thing as Batman Begins I'll call it a reboot. You can call it whatever you want, but what do YOU call a film that takes place before the films that came before it?

A Prequel? What would you call Batman Begins?

 

[Mr Jide]

A prequel doesn't always mean its a reboot. Just because the producers say they're going the BB route it doesn't mean that babs and wilson plan on restarting the franchise but merely, telling the story of origin. Batman has never had a cinematic origin prior to BB, so restaring that franchise was clearly a blatant and much needed move. However, this isn't the case with Bond, in future you'd do well to pay attention and stay informed.

 

[SurfDUI]

Reboot, and good for it. It's only ties to Flemming are the names...THIS Bond is a ball breaker!!! I'll go see the rest of these movies if there like this one...I'm late cause I just saw it .

I hope they crank out a couple more before D.J. Dench turns the big 200!!

 

[David Rice]

A prequel doesn't always mean its a reboot. Just because the producers say they're going the BB route it doesn't mean that babs and wilson plan on restarting the franchise but merely, telling the story of origin. Batman has never had a cinematic origin prior to BB, so restaring that franchise was clearly a blatant and much needed move. However, this isn't the case with Bond, in future you'd do well to pay attention and stay informed.

Really? I guess I missed the other movie where they tell Bond's origin. What was it called again?.

In the future you'd do well not assume you know everything and start talkig down to someeone you don't know.

Oh, and save the embarrassment icon for yourself. Maybe you should look at the poll up top.

 

[Mr Jide]

What other legitimate Bond movie has Bond's origin because you seem to know something I dont. Dr.No? That may be the first Bond movie but its definately not his origin story. Here's a hint, Bond's only origin to be shown on film was a little film that came out last year, starring the talented Daniel Craig.

Secondly, I don't have to know you to talk to you in a certain way, when I'm right I'm right and of you can't deal with it, tough.

Thirdly, I have nothing to feel embarrassed about. Maybe you should look at the poll and realise that the majority of the people that voted are wrong. Here's a dollar, go buy your self a clue.

 

[David Rice]

What other legitimate Bond movie has Bond's origin because you seem to know something I dont. Dr.No? That may be the first Bond movie but its definately not his origin story. Here's a hint, Bond's only origin to be shown on film was a little film that came out last year, starring the talented Daniel Craig.

Secondly, I don't have to know you to talk to you in a certain way, when I'm right I'm right and of you can't deal with it, tough.

Thirdly, I have nothing to feel embarrassed about. Maybe you should look at the poll and realise that the majority of the people that voted are wrong. Here's a dollar, go buy your self a clue.

WOW!

You are really clueless. Let's recap so that you can catch up.

You said these stories where not being told in order and just because they are telling the origin now it doesn't make it a reboot. Right?

So than I asked of you would call it a prequel since it must come before the other films. Then you said that Batman has never had a cinematic origin prior to BB, so restaring that franchise was clearly a blatant and much needed move. However, this isn't the case with Bond. So really you are saying that Bond had an origin story before CR. Right?

Than... with "sarcasm" I asked what the name of the films was.
So you thought I didn't know and I was really asking you? Do you know? Have you even seen Dr. No? Because from what you've said here before you have not seen it.

If CR is not a reboot and you know something that I don't then maybe you can figure this one out for me.

Do you know who Felix Leiter is? The black guy from CR that helps Bond after he loses the first round? Got it? Ok, how is that in Dr. No Bond meets Felix Leiter for the first time and then in CR he also mets him for the first time?
How can this be? I have not idea....
(once again if you don't get it "sarcasm") t:

I know.... bond in a parallel universe right? Go play some magic cards and leave the man talk to men. t:

REBOOT!

Oh, and you really need this now young man...

 

[union_jak]

It's unconnected, but I don't think we'll be seeing remakes of previously filmed Bond novels.

Such a pity Judi Dench was back as M, although she's great in the role, it didn't help seperate the two series'.

It would have been nice if they tweaked the story to at least fit in as a prequel- replace Leiter with another CIA guy, use a male M to represent Bernard Lee for example- but what's done is done.

The first 20 were connected, loosely, but connected. 21+ are of their own series.